Refactor parent issues resolver
What does this MR do and why?
In !102348 (merged) I'll introduce a new issues query at the root level of the GraphQL API (more details on why at #377514 (closed)). In order to reuse resolver logic and all issue filters we first need to refactor the resolver's concern and split responsibilities so we can reuse most of it in the new resolver. Doing this in a separate MR to keep them smaller.
How to set up and validate locally
There should be no interface or spec changes as this is only a refactor. For verification you could make sure nothing has changed on the API definition and behavior around issue resolvers.
MR acceptance checklist
This checklist encourages us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.
-
I have evaluated the MR acceptance checklist for this MR.
Related to #377514 (closed)
Merge request reports
Activity
changed milestone to %15.6
assigned to @mcelicalderonG
1 Warning ⚠ This merge request is quite big (911 lines changed), please consider splitting it into multiple merge requests. 1 Message 📖 This merge request adds or changes documentation files. A review from the Technical Writing team before you merge is recommended. Reviews can happen after you merge. Documentation review
The following files require a review from a technical writer:
-
doc/api/graphql/reference/index.md(Link to current live version)
The review does not need to block merging this merge request. See the:
-
Metadata for the
*.mdfiles that you've changed. The first few lines of each*.mdfile identify the stage and group most closely associated with your docs change. - The Technical Writer assigned for that stage and group.
- Documentation workflows for information on when to assign a merge request for review.
Reviewer roulette
Changes that require review have been detected!
Please refer to the table below for assigning reviewers and maintainers suggested by Danger in the specified category:
Category Reviewer Maintainer backend Valery Sizov (
@vsizov) (UTC+0, 5 hours ahead of@mcelicalderonG)Igor Drozdov (
@igor.drozdov) (UTC+1, 6 hours ahead of@mcelicalderonG)To spread load more evenly across eligible reviewers, Danger has picked a candidate for each review slot, based on their timezone. Feel free to override these selections if you think someone else would be better-suited or use the GitLab Review Workload Dashboard to find other available reviewers.
To read more on how to use the reviewer roulette, please take a look at the Engineering workflow and code review guidelines. Please consider assigning a reviewer or maintainer who is a domain expert in the area of the merge request.
Once you've decided who will review this merge request, assign them as a reviewer! Danger does not automatically notify them for you.
If needed, you can retry the
🔁 danger-reviewjob that generated this comment.Generated by
🚫 Danger-
added maintenancerefactor label
added typemaintenance label and removed featureenhancement typefeature labels
mentioned in issue #381093 (closed)
added pipeline:run-all-rspec label
added 1 deleted label and removed pipeline:run-all-rspec label
- A deleted user
added documentation label
67 argument :not, Types::Issues::NegatedIssueFilterInputType, 68 description: 'Negated arguments.', 69 required: false 70 argument :crm_contact_id, GraphQL::Types::String, 71 required: false, 72 description: 'ID of a contact assigned to the issues.' 73 argument :crm_organization_id, GraphQL::Types::String, 74 required: false, 75 description: 'ID of an organization assigned to the issues.' 76 end 6 include SearchArguments 77 7 78 def resolve_with_lookahead(**args) 79 return Issue.none if resource_parent.nil? 8 included do 9 IssueResolverArguments.argument_definition_blocks.each do |definition_block| changed this line in version 5 of the diff
- Resolved by Terri Chu
@egrieff could you please do the initial review on this one? I remember an MR you worked on related to the search arguments concern. Sorry it's a bit long but it's only refactoring and moving code around, splitting responsibilities of the concerns so they can be used separately in different resolvers. Necessary for !102348 (merged)
- Last reply by Mario Celi
requested review from @egrieff
👋 @egrieff, thanks for approving this merge request.This is the first time the merge request is approved. To ensure full test coverage, a new pipeline will be started shortly.
For more info, please refer to the following links:
mentioned in issue #381303 (closed)
requested review from @terrichu
added 923 commits
-
af8181ac...4750df2d - 922 commits from branch
master - 43a0d7b2 - Refactor issues parent resolver
-
af8181ac...4750df2d - 922 commits from branch
mentioned in merge request !102806 (merged)
added 184 commits
-
18087a7d...8f7aabfb - 183 commits from branch
master - 0042e23e - Refactor issues parent resolver
-
18087a7d...8f7aabfb - 183 commits from branch
- Resolved by Terri Chu
@mcelicalderonG I left you two questions
⚽ - Last reply by Terri Chu
removed review request for @terrichu
requested review from @terrichu
enabled an automatic merge when the pipeline for 86d48f26 succeeds
mentioned in commit b24eea52
added workflowstaging-canary label and removed workflowin dev label
added workflowcanary label and removed workflowstaging-canary label
added workflowstaging label and removed workflowcanary label
added workflowproduction label and removed workflowstaging label
added workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label and removed workflowproduction label
added workflowpost-deploy-db-production label and removed workflowpost-deploy-db-staging label
added releasedcandidate label
added releasedpublished label and removed releasedcandidate label
mentioned in issue gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com#13936 (closed)
mentioned in merge request gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com!124923 (merged)
